I won't shed a tear to see it gone, but it licensing seems to resonate with a lot of people around here.

I pulled all references to AR versions. Those interested in providing such information should consider editing the dedicated wiki article.

Seems strange that footnotes are done with letters. Is this standard?

I think it is most common to have footnotes for tables with letters and the references (to other published work or whatever) you put at the end of the document with numbers. This is the way I see it in articles as far as I remember.

There is no proprietary method of cache defeat in XLD. The chart is misleading. XLD defeats cache solely via cdparanoia (by over-reading). Cdparanoia 10.2 can accommodate an audio cache up to 2750KB, in case anyone is wondering.

Also, XLD does indeed perform AccurateRip checking across pressings/offsets. Greynol and I spent quite some time with the XLD developer on this very issue.

One year and a half gone since this discussion, though the wiki says it was modified October four months ago.

Some suggestions:

- There is a line for gap detection and one for offset correction. Is offset correction worth an entire line? I suppose most of us use it only for AccurateRip (/CUETools), and only cdparanoia has offset correction without AR. Is gap detection worth an entire line per se?

- There are other items that I consider at least as important as the previous. Pre-emphasis (TOC only or full subchannel detection, logging or tagging), and defective-by-design modes. I have more pre-emphasis CDs than HTOA-featured CDs, and certainly vastly many more pre-emph'ed tracks than HTOA bonus tracks. And are there any rippers that will automatically copy data sessions on EnhancedCD?

- The OS line: Should "Linux via Wine" be considered worthy of mention at least nearly on par with cdparanoia's "Windows via cygwin"? On the other hand, I am inclined to think that "Windows via cywgin" tells Windows users what they need to know, and "Linux via Wine" is not necessary to tell Linux users what they already know

- The HTOA item for XLD is blank (I see from the discussion that this was considered unknown), but according to the changelog at http://tmkk.pv.land.to/xld/index_e.html it does not work. (Anything above 1 second fails.)

- EAC now supports GD3 metadata (payware).

- Which brings me to the following suggestion: A line (first line following the name!) which for each ripper states what version number the info is based on. Then users can get a clue on where to start reading the changelogs.

Should Rubyripper be included here? Last version last December, at least that is more development than Rip. It has an actively maintained wiki page with some of the information required.

Re my previous posting, I think the offset and gap lines should be kept, but if one can gather the facts on index points, merge that into the gap detection. (I've found at least one album which has a bonus track in the pregap of track >1.)

On a few factual matters:

- XLD reports to support HTOA. Disregard my previous quote, I text-searched for HTOA and didn't realize it is the burner which does not work.- XLD reports Windows support via CrossOverMac, not only WineBottle- XLD fetches metadata from Discogs too

- dBpoweramp: The CUEsheet and gap detection features are now in ordinary release. Worth a footnote that cuesheets are only supported for image files.

- and the EAC support for GD3 metadata (payware) ... not sure how that should be entered. dBpoweramp has a price tag as listed, but I still think a parenthesed remark (payware) looks more appropriate.

- Should pre-emphasis be added as a row, then at least CUERipper is reported to support subchannel detection, and so does cdparanoia and iTunes and WMP?

* MediaMonkey version 4 claims secure ripping, and employs AccurateRip. I suppose it should have been in? (Version 4 was released in 2011 ...)

* EAC: I have no issues with Easy Audio Copy being listed separately, but one should think of whether (i) to merge it with Exact Audio Copy and use footnotes, or (ii) to move it next to EAC and indicate it is a kind-of-freemium model, and/or (iii) also have separate entries for dBpoweramp free and dBpoweramp Reference (although I think it is a bit overkill).

And, in case the following has not been considered and rejected for the second sentence, "[...] some years ago when the only answer was Exact Audio Copy (EAC).": should one add e.g. "for Windows and the Paranoia library for Linux, both developing already in the late 1990s" before the full stop? It does not matter much apart from a nod to the pioneering work.

QUOTE (Porcus @ Feb 15 2012, 11:10)

- Which brings me to the following suggestion: A line (first line following the name!) which for each ripper states what version number the info is based on. Then users can get a clue on where to start reading the changelogs.

I still think that is a good idea. Below the name, above "Data acquisition", a line "version". BTW, the December 18 2014 beta of EAC seems not to have added anything relevant to the article?